The OP was asking about transfering between two different LISAs (from S&S to cash), so as far as I understand it this does not constitute withdrawing from a LISA and there would be no withdrawal penalty as you describe.

If the OP suggested withdrawing to a normal (non-lifetime) ISA then the situation would be as you describe.

I think the main reason for doing the upside down method is to keep all of the water in contact with all of the coffee, until you're ready to plunge.

What you can do instead is to use it the normal way around, adding the coffee and water, and then immediately push the plunger in a centimetre or two. Just far enough to create an airtight seal. This stops water from falling out of the aeropress, keeping it in contact with the coffee until you're ready to plunge. It achieves the same thing but you don't risk spilling anything like you do with the upside down method.

The former. Any new, up-and-coming testing method has to be evaluated to determine how well it performs (including sensitivity and specificity to determine false positive/ false negative rates) before it can be approved for use diagnosing real cases.

When your bank reports to the credit report agencies they don't send information of reach transaction, only the remaining balance on the account. If you pay off purchases immediately, your card balance will always be at £0 and it will appear to the outside world as if you're not actively using the credit.

Paying by direct debit therefore is advisable because you pay at the latest date possible. That insures that your reported balance owed is as high as possible, whilst of course repaying in full each month.

Chances are you would lose more than £3k (the maximum possible bonus from a H2B ISA) just on stamp duty alone, which you'll be eligible to pay on the second house purchase.

You can cause this to happen deliberately by changing the resolution of the app. (For example by using your phone's ability to display two apps in split-screen). Load a new, unsolved question, then shrink the vertical resolution far enough and it will solve the entire answer for you.

I would guess that questions with particularly long sentences (as in the OP) are more likely to trigger this, as they require a larger vertical resolution.

If you pick two different species, they always share more DNA than would seem intuitive. That's because the last few small differences make the biggest difference. You have almost the exact same set of genes as a rabbit, as a fellow mammal, so your DNA is mostly identical. But you don't, presumably, look like a rabbit. That's because you use the same set of genes in a way different way - turning them on and off at different times and locations during development.

You don't need much DNA to store that regulatory information, so it makes a comparatively small percentage of your total DNA. But that DNA is what sets you far appart from the rabbit.

As you say, it is actually quite complicated, as there are many genes which affect eye colour. However, the fact that her father has blue eyes would suggest that yes, you could have blue, brown or (if I'm not mistaken) green eyed children.

I think that this is a separate issue to that of balancing the equation, which BioBru also seemed to be unsure about.

There are 18 oxygen atoms on each side of the equation. The CO2 already contains 12 oxygen atoms (in total), so really the water is a source of additional oxygen, not the only source. Likewise, don't ignore the 6 oxygen atoms in the sugar that is produced.

This works with the Y chromosome because you only ever have one copy of it, at most (with rare exception). This means that it cannot undergo crossing over during meiosis, and so the Y chromosome won't change very quickly as it is passed on from father to son with each generation. This means it forms distinct lineages that can be traced over evolutionary time frames.

The reason this wouldn't work with the X chromosome is that women have two copies of it. Their X chromosomes will recombine before being passed on to their child. This is enough to stop such distinct lineages of X chromosomes from emerging.

I don't disagree with your overall point. However, vaccines perhaps aren't the best comparison, as herd immunity means it is directly, immediately benefitial to the individual if everyone else is treated.

Hypothetically, if the 5' end of your primers became damaged, chopping off a random length from each product, then your results would become blurred together.

Another concern is that you would need a polymerase enzyme capable of extending RNA primers (not all of them can) as well as being capable of incorporating terminator nucleotides (I don't know how common that is).

It's a good idea to make sure you're clear on the purpose of each step/solution in a protocol before you start. You're more likely to catch yourself before you make a mistake. In some cases the protocol may be wrong too.

I don't think you need any certificates in IT, per se, but computational skills are in high demand. Probably the most universally useful thing you could have, in terms of IT skills, is familiarity with command line tools (so that you can use whatever specialism-specific tools you need) and a programming language (to develop your own tools). Historically Perl, but nowadays Python seems to be the way to go.

A species is one example of a group of individuals that evolved from a common ancestor. However, the word clade could describe a single family of individuals, a species, a genus, or even the entire animal kingdom, etc.

The word is primarily useful for talking about evolutionary trees (phylogenies). You can point to one area of the tree, and as long as it contains a common ancestor and all of its decendants you can call it a clade. Usually, people will point to a few different clades in their tree, to frame whatever point they want to make.

To take your example, if "green eyes are observed in all three mammalian clades" that means: (a) the author will have defined the three clades earlier in the text and (b) at least one representative (be it an individual or a species) from each clade has green eyes.

That does not mean that all species within each clade has green eyes. Just that each clade has at least one example of it. In this hypothetical scenario, the author would probably suggest that green eyes existed before these three clades diverged from each other.

If you look at starfish embryos/larvae, you can see that they are bilaterally symmetrical for a while before metamorphosing into adults.

Mic inputs can't usally handle line audio, as the latter is much much louder than a mic signal.

Another explanation could be that the bottom of your gel doesn't contain much Ethidium Bromide anymore. It is a positively charged molecule, and so migrates through the gel in the opposite direction to your DNA. If you run a gel to its absolute limit, the smaller bands might start to disappear for this reason. Some people put EtBr in their running buffer to compensate for this, although it's easier to just run your gel for a slightly shorter time.

Ah, right, yes I see what you mean. You'd hope they would change that soon, given this new menu.

You can delete courses by going into your settings on the website. That stops them showing up in the language switcher dropdown too.

Ionising versus non-ionising is a function of wavelength, and increasing the power of the signal wouldn't change that. High powered radio waves can impart heat to biological tissue though, so they could theoretically be dangerous in that respect.

I think that such a mechanism would require a feedback loop specific to that gene. I'm not aware of general mechanisms by which that could occur. If you want to apply LeChatlier's principle to gene regulatory networks, I'd say that the expression level of your target gene is what the system will act to keep constant, not the concentration of the regulatory proteins.

However, what could work is that, if the protein is less likely to be degraded when bound to DNA, then an increased number of binding sites would be able to harbour more proteins. In that case, if expression and translation stayed the same (not guaranteed), an increase in binding sites would increase the total concentration of your protein.

isn't more likely that telomerase would stop working as soon as a tumor is detected?

Most potential cancers don't survive for long, but those that are "successful" are those that are able to break normal protective mechanisms. Most cells in your body never produce telmoerase (as most cells don't replicate very much at all), but successful cancer cells almost always re-activate it:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3003493/

Together, these findings indicate that the near universal reactivation of telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) in human cancers may promote tumor progression, proliferation or survival through multiple mechanisms. Upregulation of TERT may yield enhanced telomerase activity and therefore stabilize short telomeres, supporting unlimited cell division. In addition, by enhanceing Wnt signals in human tumors, TERT may support proliferation and survival of cancer cells through more direct mechanisms.

Just search '[Journal name] RSS feed', and you should be able to find a URL to their RSS feed that you can put into your RSS reader program of choice.